Talk:Laugharne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Professor W.T.David

@Verbcatcher: With reference to your recent edit - "redlink as we should only include him if he merits an article" and based on WP:ACADEMIC - is there any reason why the above Laugharne Notable should not join the ranks of this considerable group? His absence from Wiki is not a reason to deprive him of notability is it? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he merits an article, but he doesn't have one. Perhaps you'd like to start one. See WP:WTAF. GrindtXX (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I already know he merits an article but it should not be a condition of his uncoloured place on the list that I have to create one, especially if the current ensanguination signifies whatever the antonym for notable is. My modest contribution to the aims of Wikipedia in this instance will be to revert that edit while we await his inclusion in the encyclopedia by someone more appreciative of the finer points of modern civil engineering Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: many editors will remove any 'Notable people' entries without an article, citing the Write the article first essay. This may be a response to frequent vandalism where unwanted names are added to lists of alumni or of people from a place. However, 'write the article first' is not an official guideline, and in my view an article is not essential if the cited sources show that the person qualifies for an article. It is unclear whether the obituary in Nature meets this threshold, but it is close and I am not arguing for removal. My red link was meant as a request for an article, see Wikipedia:Red link.

You do not need significant expertise to create a biographical stub (see WP:STUB). You only need to give his outline biography and sufficient material to establish his notability, with sources.Verbcatcher (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Many editors would therefore be in error if they did so in this case for the reasons you give. I am unclear why you are unclear that the current citation falls short of establishing notability in terms of WP:ACADEMIC. I would be grateful if you could expand on your areas of concern whilst I digest the contents of WP:STUB. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: since you ask, these are my concerns about his notability. I am not arguing that he is not notable, but these issues are likely to come up in a notability discussion. WP:NACADEMIC has eight criteria, only one of which need be met:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• The most relevant paragraph of the obit beings "In the field of research", but this dies not show a significant impact on his discipline.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• No such award is mentioned.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

• He was a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (MICE), and a Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (MIMechE). He might qualify if he had been a fellow (FICE or FIMechE). FRS would certainly qualify

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

• He is reported to have been a good lecturer, but the obit does not indicate that his teaching had a wider influence.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

• Neither of his professorial posts were named chairs. This seems to be a dubious and rough-and ready method of ranking the prestige of professorial chairs, but it would include Regius Professors who are probably very distinguished. However, I think named chairs are uncommon in the UK, and may have been even less common in his day. Also, 'Professor' appears to be a more senior rank in the UK than elsewhere. We may be able to argue that being the senior (or only) professor in a major department of a major UK university is sufficient.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

• He was Administrative Head of the Engineering Departments at Leeds, but I think this clause is looking for Vice Chancellors.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• Neither his earlier work as a schools inspector nor his work during World War I appear to qualify.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

• This is not stated in the obit.

I have found two more obituaries,[1] but they do help us much.

I think that there is most hope with criteria 1 and 5. For criterion 1 the notes say:

• The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.

Tools are available to generate citation metrics (discussed under the criteria), but they may be of limited use for this period. A specialist editor might be of help here. Another difficulty is the lack of reliable sources. His main research topic seems to have been combustion, and a Google search for 'W. T. David combustion' found some of his papers, but I have not found anything approaching a biography.

I think your removal of the redlink was wrong. A redlink does not question notability, rather it asserts probable notability and requests an article. WP:REDLINK says "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." I hope that your removal of the redlink was not tactical, to make the absence of an article less obvious.

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Most helpful, thank you for taking the time and trouble to look for more information. This piece "Professor David, who was awarded the Thomas Hawksley Gold Medal in 1937, was also a winner of the Dugald Clerk Prize and a recipient of the Starley Premium...." may fit #2. Progress with the stub is not encouraging - my sandbox currently resembles a sand dune.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that these awards might not be judged sufficiently prestigious, partly because they don't have Wikipedia articles. I tracked them down easily, the first two were for the best paper published by the institution in the year. Definitely worth mentioning in his article, but probably insufficient.

For help with your stub I suggest looking at some the articles in Category:Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles. I looked for European names with just initials, as these are likely to be older academics (modern Indian academics often use initials), and came up with R. J. Q. Adams, T.C. Johnson, T.R. Johns, G. V. Skrotskii and T. M. F. Smith. I hope this helps, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, I console myself with the thought that if this one made it even I stand a chance ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that as per WP:CITSTRUCT, the agreement on the structure of settlement articles, a person can only be included in a Notable people list if it has an article. No article, no inclusion. Note this is only for settlements (towns, villages, cities etc) and does not prescribe them from being in a list of an educational institution. WP:NLIST would apply in that case. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: my understanding is that guidelines within Wikiprojects have a lower authority that the Manual of Style. The relevant section of the MOS is at WP:SOURCELIST (which is linked from WP:NLIST), which has no requirement for a linked article. We should pay due attention to WP:CITSTRUCT, but you phrase 'can only be included' is too prescriptive; this is a matter for editorial judgement. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Submitted article for review Professor W.T.David Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft now linked on main page awaiting review. Should this discussion be moved to the Talk Page for the new article? Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to revert that - linking to a draft article is unprecidented in my experience Placing a notice here for review (and also the BLP page) is better. The issue maybe notability but I am not an expert on that - the BLP page will attract the right attention -----Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A happy outcome nonetheless, my confidence in the excellent advice received here (and taken) was not misplaced. 'Be bold' says Jimbo Cambrensis and I took him at his word ;) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had made the change rather than waiting until this afternoon when another editor did it for you :-) It all worked out so no issue as the draft article was accepted -----Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Modesty forbade, that task was more appropriately performed by the engineering cognoscenti - but it's always nice to create a precedent.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Perrot Verification as a Notable Laugharne Resident

What seems a straightforward matter to establish through his inheritance of the Perrot properties in the town following his attainted father's death is actually difficult to verify without the use of primary sources. Sir Thomas died shortly after he succeeded to the manor and castle of Laugharne (although not Carew) but it is not known whether or not he took up residence there at that time. In February 1593 he had successfully moved a writ of 'amoveas manus' citing a 1584 Deed of Settlement following Thomas' marriage to Dorothy Devereux and Sir John's appointment as Lord President of Munster. Thomas died in 1594 and a 21 year lease of certain properties in Laugharne was then granted to his widow Dorothy (from 1594 Lady Percy) and his daughter Penelope through Letters Patent in in the same year (Eliz 36) and then in 1596 (Eliz 39) 'the mansion house and castle of Tallagharn' was granted to her brother Robert, 2nd Earl of Essex (d.1601). Laugharne castle had been Thomas' home along with his stepmother (d 1592) and her 3 children from sometime before 1578 when the family moved there from Carew castle according to the public deeds referenced currently in his NR entry. There are various local traditions that also associate him with Roche Castle in Broadway and his building of a dovecote there but I can find no other secondary source so far which reliably confirms his residence in Laugharne other than records which show Thomas accompanied his father on two maritime expeditions from Gosport harbour next to the castle. In these circumstances and in accordance with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD I believe the existing citation is sufficient although may be improved with further research. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Reginald Peacock

The source for Reginald Peacock being born in Laugharne is inadequate due to its age (published 1801),[2] and because more modern sources indicate that his exact birthplace is unclear. Choosing one very old source where several more modern reliable sources are available looks like cherrypicking and appears to misrepresent the consensus of published reliable sources.

• The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says "probably born in Wales".[3]
• The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) says "born in North Wales about 1395"[4][5][6]
• The New Catholic Encyclopedia says "b. Wales, probably Saint David's diocese, between 1392 and 1395"[7](via Encyclopedia.com)
• The Oxford Companion to British History says "A Welshman"[8](via Encyclopedia.com)
• The Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959) says "Possibly of Welsh origin: tradition says he came from Laugharne, Carmarthenshire, and although no definite evidence supports this, there were Pecocks in this town in the Middle Ages." It goes on to discuss the evidence.[9]
• Charles W. Brockwell, Jr. in The Harvard Theological Review (1981) says "born in Wales"[10]

All the reliable sources that I have found indicate that his exact birthplace it unclear. We should not prefer an 1801 book that goes against the modern consensus. However, I could not access several modern sources which might contradict my analysis. Unless a better source is found I propose to remove Reginald Peacock from the list. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Scase in the ODNB (2004) says "born in Wales, probably about 1392". There is a book-length study, Bishop Reginald Pecock: A Study in Ecclesiastical History and Thought, by V. H. H. Green, first published 1945, but reprinted by CUP in 2014, so clearly still thought authoritative (although I gather it's more about his thought than his life). That needs checking, but otherwise I agree with your reasoning. GrindtXX (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Scans of the relevant pages of Green's book are available on Google Books.[11] On page 8 it says:

• Reginald Peacock was born in Wales somewhere between 1390 and 1395, although both the exact date and place are unknown. All the evidence agrees on his Welsh parentage [...] One tradition asserts that he was born at Laugharne in Carmarthenshire, but there is no evidence to suggest whether this was so or not.

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: First published in 1720 (not 1801 - which was the publication date of the enlarged version on Gbook) and it's still in print. That information was provided in his Wiki entry which your edit has removed from my citation. Willis was a highly respected antiquarian, the first to systematically record church records and none of the sources you list conflict with his attribution and consequently provide no basis for challenging its reliability. Maybe if the encyclopedias of 1911 together with Messrs Green in 1945 and Sanders (DWB) in 1959 had all enjoyed the benefits of the internet they may have not overlooked the earlier authorities. There is simply no reason why it should have been invented, his St Asaph Survey was one of more than 20 such detailed ecclesiastical works so may I ask you to revert your edit and restore the original citation (in your improved format) together with the Wiki reference to its author. (It wasn't helpful to remove the image link from the citation either btw.) I will add my own source - "The Book of Laugharne" Ch.15 Notabilities & Characters' by R.H.Tyler (1925) Gomer Press ISBN 0-86383-154-0 as an additional reference.

@GrindtXX: There are 4 independent references to Peacock being born in Laugharne - Browne Willis, Tyler, Green and Sanders and no source cited claims he wasn't. Sources can always be improved of course but the current ones are surely not inadequate. All we need is to find a copy of 'Fuller's Worthies of Wales' with Peacock mentioned on page 9 and we can add another the list!

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Browne Willis was indeed an eminent antiquary, but, as you rightly point out, was a pioneer writing three hundred years ago, without the benefit not merely of the internet but of a wealth of other modern published resources – and knowledge moves on. We do not have "4 independent references" to Pecock being born in Laugharne: we have Willis, plus 3 others who are channelling him. Green and Sanders (DWB) both refer to "tradition", and both express strong reservations about the reliability of the claim: "there is no evidence to suggest whether this was so or not"/"no definite evidence supports this" respectively. I can't speak for Tyler. Willis attributes his information to Thomas Fuller's History of the Worthies of England (1662). (He calls it "Worthies in Wales, p. 9", but clearly means the "Principality of Wales" section of the Worthies of England.) However, as Green points out (p. 8 n. 3) Fuller had made no such claim: he says merely that Pecock was "born in Wales" – see here. Fuller in turn attributes his information to John Bale's Scriptorum illustrium majoris Britanniae Catalogus, in the Basel edition of 1557–9 (p. 594) – but, again, Bale merely makes a passing allusion to "Cambria solo natali" ("Wales, his place of birth") – I've checked. This is how myths evolve. Sanders shows that there was a Pecock family associated with Laugharne in the middle ages (perhaps as landholders rather than residents – it's far from clear), but that's really not enough to claim Reginald categorically, or even with a qualification, as a native. The modern scholarly consensus, which we follow, is that Pecock was born in Wales, location unknown.

On a wider point (and this is also goes to some extent for James Perrot), in my opinion claims for a person's birthplace or residence should be stated in the first instance within the individual's own biographical article, and if necessary discussed on its Talk page, where the issue is more likely to attract the attention of editors with advanced knowledge of the subject. If the discussion is prolonged, a notification might also be posted on the geographical article's Talk page. Once the claim is accepted in the biographical article (including citation of sources, and with any necessary qualifications or disclaimers), then a consistent but condensed paraphrase can also be included in the "Notable people" section or elsewhere of the geographical article. But claims of this sort are primarily biographical, and the biographical article should surely take priority. GrindtXX (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The key issue here is that many sources available to the likes of Willis are irretrievably lost to us today. This is reflected as the weight placed upon the findings of such early authorities by contemporary scholarship has increased significantly over time. Much of what Browne saw centuries ago when he visited Tenby church - recording inscriptions on memorial effigies including those to the Peacocks of Laugharne - has since been inexorably washed away by the gentle Welsh rain. What grounds can there possibly be for discounting his evidence for artefacts which may no longer exist? What you describe as channelling is a process whereby independent authors indovidually appraise the sources and make a critical judgement as to what use in their own contribution. Referencing a tradition, even through failing to find further evidence for its origin, is not a negative action - it a desideratum for future research. The youngest member of the 'modern consensus' listed above is over 60 years old btw!

To repeat my earlier comment on another subject you raised, Willis cited a specific page reference in his copy of Fuller which Green was unable to identify in the one he was able to consult in 1948. That situation is a clear invitation to locate editions available to Willis in 1720 and must be inevitably be accompanied by the question of - why would it be invented?

Robert Henry Tyler should be regarded as the pre-eminent contemporary authority on this subject. For half a century the Oxford educated headmaster in Laugharne (where he also served as Alderman and Portreeve) was a pillar of incorrigible and invincible rectitude as the town historian. He taught several later generations of the Peacock family of Laugharne who could recite their lineage for 11 generations. Together they proudly preserved a wealth of stories about their illustrious ancestor Bishop Reginald which should not be ignored.

On your wider point I fully concur, except to point out that the subject's place of birth or residence may occasionally be an insignificant detail in the context of their notable life and deeds. It is nonetheless a necessary requirement for an NP list and may require there a level of attention as such which is deemed inappropriate on the dedicated page. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Sirjohnperrot (talk)

Believe me, I am fully conscious of the value of the investigative and recording activities of early antiquaries to modern scholarship. We also have to accept, however, that like all pioneers, the antiquaries were often floundering in the dark, and sometimes got it wrong – and when an antiquary fails to provide any indication of his source of information for an event three hundred years before his lifetime, we need to treat his testimony with great caution. In the present instance, Willis does cite a source (Fuller), and we know which edition he used (1662) because he provides the correct page number – but he garbles his statement, because the claim he makes simply isn't where he says it is. What we're left with (unless you can provide anything more substantial from Tyler) is an unsubstantiated rumour and the highly circumstantial evidence that there was indeed a Pecock family associated with Laugharne – but then, as Sanders points out, the heraldic evidence suggests that the Bishop was unconnected to that family. Sanders and Green may indeed be inviting future research – but an encyclopedia article is not the place to pursue such research. There may perhaps be just about enough circumstantial evidence and speculation from reputable scholars for something about Laugharne to be added to Pecock's own page, with appropriate qualifications clarifying the absence of hard evidence: but, given the considerable uncertainty, there is absolutely not, on what we presently have, sufficient evidence for him to be included as a native here. GrindtXX (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As requested, I have restored the author link and original publication date to the Browne Willis citation. GrindtXX appears to have more expertise in this area than I do. For me a key fact is that Green and Sanders (DWB) considered the evidence for Laugharne and found it to be insufficient; we would need extremely strong evidence to prefer an earlier source to these. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@GrindtXX:I believe you but - as they used to say in theological circles - claims of absence of evidence are not evidence of absence :) I also believe an encyclopedia is not the place to contest the reliability of two eminent published authorities who had the inestimable advantage of 'on the spot' access to primary sources, on the basis of two others (who can hardly be described as contemporary) who didn't but provided no good reason to doubt them. I believe there is "absolutely" (if I may borrow your adverb) sufficient available evidence to justify Reginald Pecock qualifying as a native of Laugharne.

@Verbcatcher: Your restoration providing ocular proof of reliable published evidence is most welcome. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Been looking for more references for Pecock's Laugharne origins using the NLW Journal search engine. It produced over a thousand instances of Browne Willis being cited in support of articles but those mentioning Laugharne seem to be all in Welsh. I'm working my way through them but thought I'd share this translation of an 1868 letter from a Rev James Williams, a retired minister in the town recalling his Methodist predecessor there:

• "My heart rejoiced at seeing the picture of the beloved Mr. Howells. When I saw his face — I will not say a trophy, but a day, my memory would throw me back in a second to our old chapel at Langharne, and we will begin to recite some of his English texts, which he preached forty years ago. You must not forget that some of its great names came from the lower part of Carmarthenshire. Both Charles; Peter Williams; John Rees; Theophilus Jones, Wotten-under-edge; David Howells; and many others that could be named. And I have recently discovered a remarkable fact [Also?] was born in Langharne Reginald Peacock, Bishop of St Asaph, in the year 1444. He stood up many years before Luther and Calvin, against the doctrines of the Church of Rome; and translated parts of the Scriptures into English. The day I found out he was born in Langharne, I shouted out Hallelujah! with all my heart, and at once I rose up to go into the land to distribute the word of the Lord among the Britons. It also renewed my vows that I would fight Rome until my body was buried."

This one is more recent and I'm still looking for it - The Essayist, Issue details: Ref. CXXXV (574-577) 1980 - "Reginald Peacock, a native of the diocese of St Davids, and bishop of St Asaph, and in Chichester, in the early fifteenth century, was the subject of T. J. Hooson's paper at the next meeting." Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick summary of above. There seems no shortage of unverifiable assertions that Bishop Pecock was from Laugharne but my review of the NLW sources does at least confirm a modern consensus that he was a Welsh student at Exeter College, Oxford from the diocese of St Davids. The evidence that survives for Willis' association of Reginald Pecock in his 'Survey of St Asaph' with the family of the same name in Laugharne is the White pedigree in Lewys Dwnn (1591) together with Lord's 'Ichnography of Tenby Church' as already referenced - "The effigy of Thomas White represents a civilian, a townsman, in the dress of his class and period. His head rests on a peacock by family right of his mother, Elenor, daughter and heiress of Jenkin Peacock, of Laugharne." As a result of my recent search Prof Sir John Edward Lloyd's biographical entry in the 'History of Carmarthenshire' Vol 2 p 443 (1939) can be added to Willis, Edwards and Tyler as a published authority who specifies Laugharne as Pecock's birthplace. I think this extra citation is as far as the sources will carry us and can be considered sufficient evidence (acknowledging reservations by some scholars) for his NP status to be resolved. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas Sculpture

Added image of Dylan Thomas Sculpture in 'Other Landmarks'. Bust by Simon Hedger, Welsh wood sculptor. Erected by Laugharne Youth Club in 2000 in The Gryst Millenium Garden facing the castle. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Horatius At The Bridge,
See my editing: here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Landmarks: The Great House, King St

Image added and article currently under construction in my Sandbox Horatius At The Bridge All contributions very welcome.(talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Article accepted and linked. Image ND withdrawn and deletedHoratius At The Bridge (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Island House

Added image in 'Other Landmarks' currently in the news and hopefully will get a Wiki article soon. BLB Entry Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Property now included within Landmarks section and linked with new article. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Caleb Rees

Added to NP - article to follow, all contributions welcome Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to see how this person is notable - an inspector of education who writes a few articles on education is all that is in the reference. Is there something else? In general the rule is that if someone has no article they are not notable so removing the entry for the moment -----Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that a person needs a Wiki article to be included in NP? Arguably it is a sufficient condition but is it a necessary one? W T David had an entry before I wrote his article. Caleb Rees also has an entry in DWB, unlike Prof David, which I understand on its own confers likelihood of notability in terms of WP:BIO. Having just re-read Wikipedia:Red link may I invite you to reconsider and revert your deletion?Horatius At The Bridge Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In my experience yes but I am open to correction by other editors. The general criteria for notability is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." although the inclusion in the biography of Wales might be enough - I would ask editors who specilise in that area. Whatever the general practice is no article no inclusion in a list and that has alrady been applied here in a previous case. It is a little different from say an article on education in Wales which cited his work where a red link would be possibly valuable. I'll admit I couldn't see how he justified an article in the Biography of Wales! -----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This looks like another case of #Professor W.T.David, but involving a different person. So, why are we discussing this all over again? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am discussing it because, unlike #Professor W.T.David, this entry has been deleted.

Snowded Frankly, that is disappointing response. Deleting an item without prior discussion on its existing Talk Page section is discourteous and to do so without specifiying the basis or any prior example, even after being asked to supply them, is worse. As has just been pointed out, W T David remained as an entry before his article was accepted and the same applies here. What you or I think about the subject's achievements as evidence of notability is irrelevant the consensus and WP policies will prevail. Do take account of his draft article and please revert your edit as requested to await the outcome of the community response on here to your reservations - if any. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You were bold, you were reverted now you discuss. If you think that is discourteous then your sojourn on wikipedia will be full of dissapointment! The basis is simple - the convention is no article then no reference in this list and you've had that explained to you by other editors on this page. In this case I can't see any semblence of notability for Caleb Rees but if you can get the community to accept an article about him then it will be accepted here -----Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Bold? I think not, the addition to the NR was in adherence to Wiki policies. You have still failed to identify any such that support your deletion and the lack of prior discussion is clearly contrary to recommended protocol. My simple, and now thrice repeated request, is for you

1. to identify which WP policy justifies your reversion,
2. to identify which previous example are you citing
3. to identify which other editor holds your view of that " no article then no reference in this list "

it would also be helpful to know what evidence there is for the 'convention' you are referencing Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure. I have been asked to come here as an uninvolved editor to offer my thoughts. I have no horse in this race. I have previously accepted at AFC a couple of drafts by HATB, but that is the extent of our relationship, a cordial talk page relationship.

I see you are both involved in a WP:BRD, which is good. Generally articles improve through these discussions whatever the outcome of the point in question.

I think this discussion is about the removal of a (possible) notable person from the article. I have two points to ask you both to consider:

• The edit summary at removal was "(needs an article for them to be notable)" and I do not think this is correct. I think they simply need to be shown to be notable and connected to the article they are listed in
• I have a firm belief that, whether having an article here 'of their own' or not all items added to lists require a reference which unambiguously links them to that list

I have only looked at the discussion being held, not at the article itself, nor in detail at any edits, only the edit summary of the edit that removed the list member. I hope you both find these comments helpful Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent You need to get your facts correct :-) its about not about a deletetion, but about not accepted the insertion of a notable person without a discussion on the talk page. Generally if asked to comment it makes sense to look at the edit history on a page to get the context. Everyone on wikipedia is free to have an opinion but the no article no inclusion principle is very common so that might need to go to another forum. That said, if you check, I explained why I thought Caleb did not qualify as notable and that needs a response not an appeal to a third party. You also need to be aware that I am currently (loosely) mentoring Horatius At The Bridge as a condition of him not being permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. One of the issues there was forum shopping so please don't get sucked in and encourage Horatius to use the talk page and RfC and other processes -----Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge I am under no obligation to review a talk page for links which you can find yourself by simply walking back through this. I've also said that I can see nothing notable in the bio of this person and quoted the need for multiple full time sources from polocy for you. Todate one other editor agrees with me. I suggest you find more evidence to support notability and look to create an article. You can also call a RfC if disucssion here does not progress as you want. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Snowded, Thank you for your information on the mentoring. I shall not express curiosity over the reasons, wrong time wrong place. I agree that the principle you mention should become formalised; until it is we will just differ quietly as colleagues. I did look at the edit history, just not the article. I apologise for not making that more clear. I came to offer a couple of thoughts. Having offered them I will back quietly away. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

SnowdedI did so when you claimed they existed and there are none I can find, which probably explains why you can't name the alleged individual (now singular I note) either. Your mentoring role is appreciated but was not a condition of anything, it was voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted. The final proposal was for an indefinite ban with a 7 day review not a permanent one btw. It came about, you may recall, as a result of my complaints to admin about your dishonesty. I would also remind you that the family of Caleb Rees might well be reading this discussion and could well find your remark that his career (as outlined in DWB) 'lacked any semblance of notability' as rather offensive. I would urge you to be more measured in your observations about him and also in your consideration of the comments on the appropriateness of your deletion by a neutral editor.

Timtrent Thank you for your input. I have corrected the inaccurate account of mentoring given by Snowded above (also the forum shopping insult etc he just edited in) but it is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion and does him discredit to both mention it and to misdescribe it. An apology from him would be appropriate but I'll step away from this unpleasantness and complete the article. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll ignore you starting up on the personal attacks again this time but any repitition of that, or if you start forum shopping again and I will withdraw from mentoring. The onus is on you to show notability, so far you haven't. Try and focus on that -----Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Article created and reversion undone in accordance with WP:REDLINK. The "no article, no inclusion in a list" principle/convention referred to above, whether on this page or elsewhere, is not in accordance with BIO as far as I can see but if other editors share the views of Snowded the issue can be flagged for resolution. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well as of next week I will have been editing here for 14 years with over 36k edits on over 3.7k pages and in ALL that time you are the only person to raise such a challenge. Guidence for Settlement Articles] is very clear that people should not be included in the list of those notable unless they satisfy the criteria for notability. The existence of an article about them is deemed sufficient for this. So you have now done what I asked you to do which is to put the creation of an article before insertion so there really was no need for all the drama. Policy on red links really deals with content more than lists and it should be pretty self evident. :If you are correct then you could list yourself as a notable person on the Stockport Page, with a red link as could the whole population of that that town, or Greater Manchester for that matter. If you really think you are correct then you might want to raise a discussion at the talk page of the above referenced guidence page. I note that you have simply created the article and have not had it reviewed so I have put it under watch. If a new article reviewer (not my area of expertise) challenges it then the entry will need to be deleted. Whatever, your reaction above and on your talk page raises serious issues about either your willingness to be mentored or my ability to manage that but I will add a section to your talk page re that as it doesn't belong here. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out by another editor, this issue has already been discussed in a previous section and resolved. I'll quote the exchange for easy reference

"It should be noted that as per WP:CITSTRUCT, the agreement on the structure of settlement articles, a person can only be included in a Notable people list if it has an article. No article, no inclusion. Note this is only for settlements (towns, villages, cities etc) and does not prescribe them from being in a list of an educational institution. WP:NLIST would apply in that case. User:Canterbury Tail

@Canterbury Tail: my understanding is that guidelines within Wikiprojects have a lower authority that the Manual of Style. The relevant section of the MOS is at WP:SOURCELIST (which is linked from WP:NLIST), which has no requirement for a linked article. We should pay due attention to WP:CITSTRUCT, but you phrase 'can only be included' is too prescriptive; this is a matter for editorial judgement. User:Verbcatcher"

I hope that addresses your concerns and there is no danger of my appearing in red-linked form since, very regrettably, nobody has seen fit to include me in a National Biography and thereby make it likely I could be considered notable enough to appear in the list of Stockport NPs. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

Please use diffs rather than cutting and pasting, it means that other editors comments are taken out of context - several editors have told you about this before and you need to take it on board. That is not a resolution, you have an experienced admin support the idea of a linked article and another editor disagreeing that may be too strict. If you want to resolve it you will need to take it to an appropriate forum for community discussion. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. Thank you for your corrections and advice, which is appreciated and will be followed as all good advice should. I don't recall other editors having raised the matter before but since you say they have it must be true. I don't believe the quoted passage has been taken out of context though. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Guidelines and Wikiprojects are of lesser authority than the Manual of Style, but you'll find the majority of Wikipedia editors adhere to them. If a Wikiproject or group has determine, through consensus with the community, that this is a structure or process they wish to follow, then generally it's followed. Is WP:CITSTRUCT policy? No, because policy is not about area specific topics but across the entire Wiki, that is left to Wikiprojects and the like. Is it something that people should generally adhere to because it represents consensus? Yes, and CITSTRUCT is something reached through the consensus of a rather large Wikiproject of hundreds of users so you'd need a good reason to go against it. Just because something is a guideline and not a policy, doesn't mean you can ignore it because the guidelines represent the project consensus on that topic. Think of them as localised rules rather than the global ones represented by policies. Canterbury Tail talk 20:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very well put and I agree with you - if only you'd posted it earlier before we fell out ... :) Obviously not with yourself I should add. The argument citing the greater good being achieved via the observance of the rule rather than the individual act has been successfully deployed by my former employers in the Civil Service since it inception and is a very powerful one. I fully accept it is appropriate for the Wiki community approach. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir William Lower of Laugharne Castle?

According to the BBC's 'Wales & the History of the World' Part 1 - 20 minutes 19 secs - it was Sir William Lower in Laugharne, not Galileo in Pisa, who first saw the moon through a telescope in 1609. William was apparently then living in Laugharne castle, which his wife Penelope (granddaughter of Sir John Perrot) inherited from her father Sir Thomas when he died in 1594. Her mother, Dorothy remarried in the same year and went off to live with her new husband 'The Wizard' Earl of Northumberland leaving her daughter behind. She married in 1604 and it's implied didn't move to Treventy across the estuary in Llanfihangel Abercowin until after 1609. Another (very) notable resident for the list if our national broadcaster is correct! I'm sceptical though, more research required to establish how long they lived together in Laugharne, if at all. He was certainly living in Treventy by 1609 according to these articles 1905 + 1897.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)